It is, as with almost everything in life, a balance.
It might be the case that the balance in Hungary is off as the author of the article claims, but that claim was buried in a one-sided rant against the cost of accessing the labour pool.
The point of my post was to even the scales, to remind everyone that it costs a lot of money to employ people, because creating employable people costs a lot of money. The CS college graduates we want to interview as potential employees of our dot-com startups don't materialize out of thin air. As cheesy as it sounds, previous generations invested in their future; we have to do the same.
He did talk about a balance, a very important one. He compared the cost of an employee to the value it can bring him as an employer.
A business simply can not hire when the cost of an employee exceeds the benefits, and if it can't make do without employees, it will simply go out of business. It doesn't matter at that point how much it cost to "create employable people" (itself a terribly loaded formulation, but moving on), because society has priced itself right out of the market, apparently.
Something a lot of people seem to forget is that if you want to use businesses as a piggy bank to fund social ambitions, you have to let some money actually flow into the piggy bank. It is not simply a given that money will be there.
It might be the case that the balance in Hungary is off as the author of the article claims, but that claim was buried in a one-sided rant against the cost of accessing the labour pool.
The point of my post was to even the scales, to remind everyone that it costs a lot of money to employ people, because creating employable people costs a lot of money. The CS college graduates we want to interview as potential employees of our dot-com startups don't materialize out of thin air. As cheesy as it sounds, previous generations invested in their future; we have to do the same.